Unmasking The Rulers

     “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” – misattributed to Voltaire, but we’ll get to that later.

     [James Taggart] “What I mean is, there are practical problems to solve, which…For instance, what was that matter of our last allocation of new rail vanishing from the storehouse in Pittsburgh?”
     [Dagny Taggart] “Cuffy Meigs stole it and sold it.”
     “Can you prove that?” he snapped defensively.
     “Have your friends left any means, methods, rules or agencies of proof?”
     “Then don’t talk about it, don’t be theoretical, we’ve got to deal with facts! We’ve got to deal with facts as they are today…I mean, we’ve got to devise some practical means to protect our supplies under existing conditions, not under unprovable assumptions, which –”
     She chuckled. There was the form of the formless, she thought, there was the method of his consciousness: he wanted her to protect him from Cuffy Meigs without acknowledging Meigs’s existence, to fight it without admitting its reality, to defeat it without disturbing its game.

     [Do you really need to be told?]

     The first quote above tells us that we can’t criticize them directly. Sometimes – more often than not, lately – our “rulers” can be identified indirectly. For example, if we speak of a victimized group, it implies that there’s a victimizer to be addressed. When the identity or nature of that victimizer is obvious, the criticism, however indirect, is equally obvious.

     Hence, two links:

• UK’s Top Cop Threatens to Extradite Americans for Social Media Posts
• French Christians Arrested for “Stop Attacks On Christians” Message

     In both the above cases, the obvious victimizers are violent Muslims, of which Britain and France both have a great number. History tells us clearly that violence against “unbelievers” is Islam’s preferred method of propagating itself and acquiring dominance. The authorities of those nations have plainly decided that allowing that to be spoken of publicly is too likely to eventuate in further violence and disorder in their violence-wracked, disorderly cities. Therefore, they want all mention of it silenced.

     Cui bono, Gentle Reader? Who benefits from the suppression of such speech? It’s certainly not French Christians. Neither is it Britons – or Americans – speaking plainly about the violence and disorder being inflicted on Britain by its Muslim immigrants. It might be those selfsame authorities who prefer to let their Muslim fractions do as they please. They’d rather not get their uniforms dirty dealing with violent savages in the streets.

     Now: The quote misattributed to Voltaire, according to Reuters, was actually penned by a certain Kevin Alfred Strom, an American. This fellow appears to have been an unpleasant sort, a neo-Nazi. But does that make the sentiment he expressed less true? Is it impossible for a villain to speak the truth on occasion?

     Just some early-morning thoughts. Time for Mass.